Hello everyone, Coming straight to the point, I find finance and investment more interesting than insurance or pensions. I would to like to see myself working as an investment banker or analyst (capital markets, corporate finance, M&A etc,) But on surfing a lot on the internet, there doesnt seem to be any demand for actuaries in any other field than in insurance and pensions. Other professionals like CFAs, MBAs in Finance usually get into investments. When I compare the syllabus of the above courses with that of actuaries, I can safely say that even the CT series syllabus constitutes more concepts and knowledge than CFA and MBA finance put together. So why dont actuaries go into investment banking, or any other field other than insurance for that matter. Isnt the remuneration as good as insurance or is over-qualification an issue? Thanks.
Part of the answer is that it is that way because it has always been that way. I also suspect (but don't know) that it's quite common for people who go down that path to drift away from defining themselves as an actuary. I gather most actuaries that end up in the investment field arrive there from pensions firms, which generally have very large amounts to invest.
Exactly! Why do they have to drift away from defining themselves as actuaries? Why cant we have "investment actuaries" when we are quite capable of doing it?
There are now more investment exam options in the ST subjects where you need to do 2. Then there is a specialist level too so if you want to, you can gear your education that way once you have the 'fundamentals' exams out of the way. But it is true that investment banks don't recruit actuarial trainees which is why its a later shift for many.
Yeah. I was going to come to that. How much bearing does the choice of specialist level exams have on our career as a fellow? For instance, suppose I appear for ST 5 & 6 and SA 5 & 6, i.e. exams on finance and investment can I expect to get a job in the investment field? Or are the specialist level exams just seen as exams to be cleared for attaining fellowship?
Perhaps this might be useful http://www.actuaries.org.uk/practice-areas/pages/career-guidance It's not a well trodden path. I imagine that at a typical investment bank, there will be little scope for study leave etc, and the added value of actuarial qualifications (over your banker peers, CFA, MBA etc) is in the eyes of potential employers. Actuaries don't have a monopoly, statutory roles,... in the field of investment like they do with insurance. But if that's where you want to go, by all means do it. It's probably worthwhile getting in touch with someone who's actually made the transition (see the above link) They're potential employers as well, and probably ones who will see the benefit of hiring an actuary. I also see more and more investment type ads in the Actuary.
Sure didster i agree. But do you mind throwing some light on my question about specialist subjects? What if i appear finance and investment exams? How will that affect my career?
Firstly, you only need one SA level though there is nothing to stop you getting 2 if you really want to. Secondly, often what you do at Fellowship is driven by who employs you at that stage and they have preferences. But some companies are flexible particularly if they have actuarially trained people working in pensions. It could help you get a job in investments as you have shown interest in the area and have gained some verified knowledge of this arena. So if you really want to go that route, I'd say say its a good idea. But as that arena is competetive you might want to think about doing just one finance paper of an ST. Note not many people choose these exams particularly at SA level. That doesn't mean they are seen as a difficult/easy option. You can see the number sitting if you look on the exam results page of actuaries.org.uk. It also says how many pass!
Getting into investment banking is much more difficult than getting into an actuarial role and there is no clearly defined study route to becoming an 'investment banker' whereas actuarial does have a well defined study route.. Unless you have a first class honours degree in something like electrical engineering/finance (preferably both) then you don't stand much chance of entering a top investment bank as a graduate, which is pretty much the only way in these days. Actuarial investment subjects hold absolutely no esteem whatsoever in the finance and investment industry compared with things like CFA or CA (even though they are much more in depth)
Actuaries recognize & hire prospective actuaries, quants hire quants, MBA's hire MBA's. Most actuaries work in insurance.
Thanks everyone, That clears a lot of things for me. I am from India and insurance industry is still premature here. Does not create many jobs. I was just curious if finance will get me a job.
You could try risk analytics as an alternative to investments or insurance. The role of actuarial prospects is growing (and will continue to replace m.stats) big time there in India.
Try applying for any non-actuarial jobs with the skills you've acquired from your actuarial studies and work experience. I have and can confirm it's grim. I've tried applying for credit risk analysis, risk analysis, data analyst, statistician etc. with no success, not even an interview. Be warned: actuarial is a very narrow field. Consider carefully where the main employers are and whether you would want to live there. Moving within Actuarial between GI/Pensions/Life is extremely difficult as people won't give you a chance usually. Also in my experience, Actuarial employers are not very forthcoming in getting you to learn really sought after skills such as Prophet, Moses unless you've been around for years and don't seem like you're gonna leave any time soon to really cash in on those skills elsewhere.
In India, employers tend to focus on perfect match on job requirement and past experience these days. Part of this tendency is explained by the fact that they want hires to be monetized as soon as they get on board, so not much emphasis getting cross industry hires if you are not into a managerial position, and hired for hands on work. On the other hand, if you happen to be a team lead/person managing resources, chances are you can move into different job profiles. This has been my observation , so people from investments moving to retail analytics, insurance to analytics etc. This cuture also owes itself to the HR consultants as well, who will not push for you if they find you not a good match. As I see, if you are form Analytics, attempts to mov to insurance face this hurdle of relevent experience, even if you have been doing all the stuff you will typically do in an insurance company (data mining, pricing, rating models etc). And yes, in India, opportunities in Insurance are indeed not many, if you are looking towards working with indian insurers.
That is a big part of the problem: the HR mentality that someone who has apparently done it before must be the best at it, even though they may have been terrible at it. Of course, it's almost impossible for HR to verify one's claims that they have done those tasks before. We will never find out how good they were at it since the references nowadays won't contain negative comments.
